Y2HH

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 02:54 PM) Well, if nothing else, this new maps software gives me a reason to consider the GS3 as my next phone (or the GS4 come February). By then you'll be able to download google maps as an app again. BigSqwert likes to pretend that if it isn't pre installed that it doesn't exist. In the mean time you can go to maps.google.com when you don't need turn by turn. Also of note, map quest had supported this for years, a free iOS app you could have been using this entire time.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 03:56 PM) A feature that has been included in other operating systems for years now. Including iOS...it's called an App Store, mapquest is free. Next.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 01:05 PM) In the event that you actually have a possibly lethal milk allergy in your school, you should take steps to prevent exposure to that product. A big question winds up being the level of exposure...if getting it on skin can be lethal, then you have to find a way to keep the kid away from that product. Shellfish...well I don't know what school you went to that can afford that. One thing worth noting though is that nut allergies are 5x more common than any of the other ones youve referred to, so in the large majority of cases that's going to be the one you have to worry about. Yes, "5x more common" to the tune of 0.4-0.6% of people as an entire race.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 01:04 PM) I have answered the question but consider that I'm not researching for a public policy PhD and therefore can't provide some clear, distinguishable bright line of "reasonable" and "unreasonable" if one could even be found. If a student has a severe shellfish allergy and the likelihood of accidental second-hand ingestion is sufficient, sure, at that school, ask parents not to send shellfish in their kids' lunches. The same for other allergens. The problem with peanut butter is that the oils leave a thin residue and can easily be ingested without notice by a child who touches something with the residue on it, and that even such a small amount can be deadly. Can the same be said for dairy or other foods? I do not know, but I would suspect not. Cheery pick shell fish out of the list when you could have picked milk, which exists in every school. Nice try.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 12:56 PM) Alternatively, ask parents not to send their kids to school with peanut butter. The horror. Again, where do we draw the line? The horror is that you, nor anyone else, has answered this question, despite my posting of scientific fact that OTHER foods also cause anaphylaxis... including DAIRY products. But don't let facts get in the way of your opportunistic anti peanut butter campaign. Many foods can trigger anaphylaxis; this may occur upon the first known ingestion. Common triggering foods vary around the world. In Western cultures, ingestion of or exposure to peanuts, wheat, tree nuts, shellfish, fish, milk, and eggs are the most prevalent causes. Better ban all of them if you need to ban one of them.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 10:55 AM) Thats not even close to true. Look up tort immunity and municipal liability acts. Schools for whatever reason dont aggressively ask for protection like other areas of govt. No idea why not. Don't ruin my lawyer joke.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 10:42 AM) Its mainly liability with allergies. If a law could be passed that would make schools not liable for it, I doubt they would have any problems. But the risk of being sued for millions isnt worth having peanuts. We would never pass laws in this country to tamp down lawsuits...it would destroy our last great resource...lawyers!

Oh, also of statistical note: 150 people die annually from serious allergic food reactions. That includes adults. Meanwhile...about 10,000 children are hospitalized annually with traumatic brain injuries from sports. Let's ban all sports while we're at it, since it's 10000% more likely your child will die from that than a peanut allergy. For f***s sake, people. Just stop.

Also of scientific note: Food is generally the most common cause of anaphylaxis. Common food triggers include nuts, shellfish (shrimp, lobster), dairy products, egg whites, and sesame seeds. It's it's far more than just peanut butter than can cause it, and dairy CAN kill you just the same...a fallacy people here have repeated and said it cannot. It can.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 10:12 AM) Accidental contact with peanut butter is fairly easy and potentially deadly.not true of dairy. It's more than just peanut butter...this is just being used as an easy example. Still has nothing to do with the fact that precedent has been set. It's ok to ban peanut butter for what is already a vast minority...but it's not ok to ban honey or other nuts? So you'll make an acception for something that affects 0.4-0.6% of the total population, but not something that affects only 0.1%?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 10:05 AM) I'd venture to guess that peanut allergies are much more common than whatever was wrong with that kid. They are...but if you're making an acception/accommodation for a peanut allergy, which while a more common allergy still afflicts a vast minority people, I -- as a concerned parent -- want to know why you won't make an acception for my kid who is deathly allergic to dairy? You've set precedent on banning foods being an acceptable practice for just in case reasons -- so now you've opened the door for litigation when it comes to any/other foods, too. Like I said...where do we draw the line?

QUOTE (MexSoxFan#1 @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 10:00 AM) I'm sorry but the people who are a drag and are holding back this country are the backward hillbilly racist homophobic inbred white trash piece of sh*t like that guy who hung that chair. Shame on the GOP for pandering to those idiots instead of ignoring them. No wonder blacks, latinos, women, gays and young people vote Democratic, there's no room for us in the party that caters to those kinds of people. If the GOP doesn't shift to the center and becomes more inclusive, they'll be the decided minority party, America is changing, deal with it. Wrong. You vote democratic because you like free s***...because you are poor an lazy. Please know that I'm kidding before you get mad at me.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 10:00 AM) I've seen a story on a kid that was allergic to sunlight. I'm pretty sure his parents had to find a way to change their lives to deal with it. They couldn't just send him out and hope that he would be ok. Meh...all he would have done was sparkle...

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 09:50 AM) This is just idiotic to the nth degree. My kid can die from touching peanuts? Hmm. I'll quit my job, stop paying rent, and go to the soup kitchen for my meals just so I can home school. I can't think of a simpler solution so I'll just have to do this. Not quite what I said, but ok. The question I posed was where do we draw the line? A question you've repeatedly failed to answer, other than to dismiss it by saying something asinine like "that's idiotic to the nth degree". The only thing idiotic about it was your reply. What if your kid is allergic to all nuts, and honey? Ban everything...just in case...because 0.5% of the population may die from it? Sorry, but I'm going to have to say no...I don't want to be intensive to your made of glass kid, but too bad. Yes, I'd feel the same way if my own kid was that fragile, too...it'd be unfortunate, but wtf...you impose on everyone else because YOUR specific kid cracks like china? I find THAT to be more insensitive to the majority.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 09:43 AM) Because it'd be better for the kid to lead a normal childhood instead of being ostracized if the only cost is not having peanut butter at school. It also teaches children a lesson about doing things to help others. I don't think those other "may contain peanuts" or "processed on equipment that also processes peanuts" products present nearly as much of a risk of contact and ingestion as straight-up peanuts and especially greasy, oily, sticky peanut butter do, but I may be wrong. Again...where does it end? These same reaction occur from other things aside from peanut butter, but anything with 'tree nuts' involved...honey, etc... In 30 years we'll have banned so many things that all we can eat is a protein tablet with some water. No thank you.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 09:42 AM) Not everyone has the ability to home school. Some of us need to work to pay the bills. Well, if you happen to have a kid with a severe allergy to that degree, maybe you'll need to find a way...just as we always have. What's funny is that scientists believe that we caused these allergies by sanitizing the world too much, and this is a inadvertent reaction of a 'bored or underdeveloped immune system'. At this rate, in 30 years, we'll have to just ban peanuts, nuts, honey and every other food that causes such reaction...period. I'm not trying to be insensitive...but there has to be a line drawn somewhere...and I find this to be the first step to the world depicted in 1984. And to that, I say...no thanks.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 09:39 AM) This. Especially the home-schooling part. If a kid is that severely allergic to something, why take the risk at all? Usually if they are that sensitive to it, it's not just peanut butter. It's anything that has peanuts in it. Granola bars, trail mix, snickers bars, cereal... Should they ban all that stuff from lunches too? Give them time...they will.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 09:26 AM) I've had that ability for two years now. ...and? Windows Mobile has that ability 10 years ago. By your rational, that would make Android s***tier than Windows Mobile 4.x...when it's not.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 09:00 AM) For Illinois, that might hold true thanks to that giant lake we border, but that's part of the problem. Great Lakes water is being bottled and shipped across the country, out of its natural watershed. Stop being greedy with our water, you greedy republican that won't share water with other parts of the world that don't have it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 09:02 AM) They didn't push it to their highest levels. They matched the 93-94 Republican minority and then steadily declined. The graph shows they pushed it to it's highest levels to that point. When you do things like this it shows you are not objectionable. You are comparing their high point to the republicans highest point to that time -- and theirs was higher -- and then claiming it declined steadily...when it declined and then steadily went back up...again, to a higher point than the republicans aside from 1 time, which they had already exceeded once.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 08:53 AM) Really? I turn my tap on and very little plastic comes out.l I mean alternative choices that you'd purchase... Like soda, or juice, or Gatorade...all plastic, too. Of course for those of us at home, I fill my own stainless bottles out of a Britta filter pitcher...but when I'm on the road, that's not as easy to do.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 08:54 AM) Well that's what we're talking about, unprecedented use to obstruct anything and everything to achieve their stated #1 goal: make Obama a 1-term President. Yes, Democrats and Republicans have both used the filibuster in the past. The "not to this insane extent" is exactly the point, though, and what sinks the "both sides!" argument. Because "both sides!" haven't done it to this insane extent. 1) Too bad it's looking like that 'strategery' won't work. 2) I don't excuse the republicans for doing what they're doing right now. However, I'm not pretending the Democrats didn't, up until the point the republicans went filibuster insane, didn't push it to it's highest level of all time...

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 08:52 AM) The only problem I'm goign to have with this statement is the term "Started"...because going all the way back to the 1960's, every time there's been a major jump in the incidence of cloture votes compared to the previous congress, it's been the Republicans in the minority. Yes, the Democrats use it too...but "started" really isnt' the accurate term. I'd hate you, but ignoring facts is a pet peeve of mine. Thanks for the correction.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 08:50 AM) (and the draining of local water tables and lakes/rivers/ponds etc. when that water is bottled shipped hundreds/thousands of miles away) Most bottled water is local, unless you prefer the 50$ Fiji bottle...because it's square packaging.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 21, 2012 -> 08:49 AM) (Bottled water isn't good for you. At least not when you consider the existence of "The bottle"). Same bottles used for alternative drink choices, so it's not like it matters in the grand scheme of things.